CSAR to AFSOC? What do the customers think?

[SCRIMP]

The discussion of moving CSAR from ACC to AFSOC is alive and well again at HAF.

 

I am curious what the actual customers of our “insurance policy” think about this move.

 

I would also love to hear from the AFSOC folks in the room if this is actually a mission you want to execute?

[ClearedHot]

5 hours ago, SCRIMP said:

I am curious what the actual customers of our “insurance policy” think about this move.

You might ask "actual customers" like Lt Col Dale Zelko or Lt Devon Jones.

[brabus]

What would potentially change from my (customer) POV? If the rescue bros will get better support from AFSOC, then do it. I think AFSOCs mindset on some things would benefit them over staying in ACC. But that's just an outsiders perspective, I could be way off. 

[HU&W]

ACC does an excellent job managing and employing things that are pointy and fast.

[BashiChuni]

um...excuse me gentlemen can we not use "customers"? please use "joint partners" from now on. thank you.

 

[Danger41]

9 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

um...excuse me gentlemen can we not use "customers"? please use "joint partners" from now on. thank you.

 

Dude, joint partners is not the prefered nomenclature...Isolated personnel, please.

 

As an AFSOC guy (not a CV-22 guy), I think it'd be a good move.  Mainly due to the fact that AFSOC seems a lot more flexible with the rules and empowering the decision authority down lower. I've heard stories from CSAR bros about not getting launch authority from higher for a very long time and having to navigate very onerous processes to get there.

I have total faith in the crews operating all parts of the CSAR triad, I just have a limited faith in the processes in place to get people moving to pick me up.  That could be a lack of my own understanding, but that's my $0.02.

[BashiChuni]

22 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Dude, joint partners is not the prefered nomenclature...Isolated personnel, please.

 

As an AFSOC guy (not a CV-22 guy), I think it'd be a good move.  Mainly due to the fact that AFSOC seems a lot more flexible with the rules and empowering the decision authority down lower. I've heard stories from CSAR bros about not getting launch authority from higher for a very long time and having to navigate very onerous processes to get there.

I have total faith in the crews operating all parts of the CSAR triad, I just have a limited faith in the processes in place to get people moving to pick me up.  That could be a lack of my own understanding, but that's my $0.02.

maybe they are "isolated personnel" at WIC my good sir, but identifying them as "isolated" does not help us fight "jointly" together. and you should never assume their "isolation"...it shows your (dare i say) ignorance

please refrain from such assumptive language and use "joint partners"

[magnetfreezer]

Interesting discussion here https://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?s=901d9e51cc8a14c5513b30f6357692d0&t=57577 from 11 years ago when CSAR was moved from AFSOC to ACC  - rationale seems to have been more funding / priority vs competing with SOF missions programatically.

[SCRIMP]

Dude, joint partners is not the prefered nomenclature...Isolated personnel, please.
 
As an AFSOC guy (not a CV-22 guy), I think it'd be a good move.  Mainly due to the fact that AFSOC seems a lot more flexible with the rules and empowering the decision authority down lower. I've heard stories from CSAR bros about not getting launch authority from higher for a very long time and having to navigate very onerous processes to get there.
I have total faith in the crews operating all parts of the CSAR triad, I just have a limited faith in the processes in place to get people moving to pick me up.  That could be a lack of my own understanding, but that's my $0.02.

The acquisition process alone is a highly attractive benefit for a move to AFSOC. It seems like it is a lot easier to get the material solutions that are required for a 3rd gen helicopter to affect 5th gen needs.

It will be interesting to see who will still hold the execute authority if AFSOC owns us but we are operating for the CFACC.

[Swizzle]

The switch from a GEO-based COCOM(s) to Functional would make interesting, complicated and new C2 relationships...and funding...and training issues

[SCRIMP]

What would potentially change from my (customer) POV? If the rescue bros will get better support from AFSOC, then do it. I think AFSOCs mindset on some things would benefit them over staying in ACC. But that's just an outsiders perspective, I could be way off. 

Part of my concern is the rumor floating around the punch bowl is that the HH-60W purchase is going to be reduced so they can buy an additional 12-18 CVs. My concern is that AFSOC doesn’t actually want the mission and you “customers” won’t be as much of a priority as a secondary mission set.

This move also causes problems for the guard/reserve side of the house from what I understand.

The more this discussion continues, the more I wonder if this discussion is occurring because ACC doesn’t want the mission either.

[SCRIMP]

You might ask "actual customers" like Lt Col Dale Zelko or Lt Devon Jones.

Fingers falls in the same category as a customer of AFSOC. I wasn’t around back then, but do you think that AFSOC has changed after 16 years of GWOT?

I’m asking those still strapping on the jet to cross the wire into OIR if they think it is a good idea to have their insurance policy being held/funded by a different MAJCOM that may or may not hold the mission of CSAR at the same level of priority.

[BashiChuni]

.02

from an AFSOC guy i can see it being a good move as well (with caveats)

1. no mission creep. CSAR is CSAR...and will NOT evolve into NTISR...keep them off the evil sync matrix's that i know Tac Airlifter just LOVES!

2. funding for CSAR is not a money pot to be raided for higher AFSOC priorities

if those two things hold true then it's good in my mind. +1 to what Danger41 said about probably easier for AFSOC CSAR to get past the bureaucracy to actually launch...for those of you in the proverbial "know" i'd refer you to the  2016 incident in OIR for a case study.

#JointPartners

 

[nunya]

14 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

no mission creep. CSAR is CSAR...and will NOT evolve into NTISR

No way they let a capable sensor sit idle for long. Too much demand for pred porn.

[SurelySerious]

Do you see the JPRC changing within/out of the AOC construct, or just putting it in AFSOC to OT&E? Because if it's still under the Air Component Commander of whatever theater, then the go/no-go decisions won't change much.

HHQ ef ups aren't because the CRO on the ops floor was trained with ACC funding/regs, if that makes sense. Those dudes are pretty fangs out as it is. 

[Danger41]

5 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

maybe they are "isolated personnel" at WIC my good sir, but identifying them as "isolated" does not help us fight "jointly" together. and you should never assume their "isolation"...it shows your (dare i say) ignorance

please refrain from such assumptive language and use "joint partners"

Watch "The Big Lebowski" while you're stranded waiting for a rotator for explination of wording.  You should be able to watch it approximately 200 times.

[Sprkt69]

3 hours ago, SCRIMP said:

Part of my concern is the rumor floating around the punch bowl is that the HH-60W purchase is going to be reduced so they can buy an additional 12-18 CVs. My concern is that AFSOC doesn’t actually want the mission and you “customers” won’t be as much of a priority as a secondary mission set.

This move also causes problems for the guard/reserve side of the house from what I understand.

The more this discussion continues, the more I wonder if this discussion is occurring because ACC doesn’t want the mission either.

ACC was terrible about helping the CSAR guys out because they don't understand/care about the mission. If you want to know specifics, ask the guys who sat CSAR alert in Afghanistan and those trying to keep CSAR-X from falling apart.

AFSOC cares about AFSOC. Zero fvcks given about ACC assets unless it's to further their own mission. So I fail to see the how the CSAR guys will get the support they deserve to keep us from being pedestrians behind enemy lines for extended periods.

The amazing thing is how well the CSAR guys have done in spite of the AF. 

[SurelySerious]

3 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

ACC was terrible about helping the CSAR guys out because they don't understand/care about the mission. If you want to know specifics, ask the guys who sat CSAR alert in Afghanistan 

Are you trying to address an ACC Organize/Train/Equip problem that manifested itself in AFG, or a combatant commander misallocating/misusing his rescue assets? 

[Breckey]

I think that AFSOC is trying first and foremost to get GA and the tankers. I feel that there is a reason why the HC-130 has kept pace with most of the MC-130 modifications and kept the space for the second CSO. GA are already a AFSOC-lite asset in the CAF and adding them to AFSOC will allow them to plus up even more.

IMHO AFSOCs modification of the CSAR-X KPPs shows everything that they care about the CSAR mission set as a stand-alone core competency. That modification, allowing the H-47 to compete (4 hours mission ready to 4 hours "flight" ready) after realizing that the PAVELOW sunset would leave them with a capability cap, set the stage for the LM/Sikorsky protest and the eventual cancellation of the contract. This leads the AF to contracting the HH-60W entering service in 2020 having fewer capabilities than the MH-60M that came into service 13 years prior.

 

[matmacwc]

Lets throw another dozen generals and an entire chain of command in the mix, what could go wrong.

[Sprkt69]

47 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Are you trying to address an ACC Organize/Train/Equip problem that manifested itself in AFG, or a combatant commander misallocating/misusing his rescue assets? 

Both actually

[busdriver]

This comes up every couple years at the HAF level.  New COMACC means time to talk about it again.  Shit wasn't really that different the last time we were in AFSOC, I have no reason to suspect it would be different if they flicked us back again.

The AO/Bro level at AFSOC staff absolutely thinks the mission and dudes would be better supported by Hurbie.  I have no idea what the GOs think, but this is absolutely about curtailing the HH-60W buy, getting more CV-22s, and absorbing the HC-130Js and GA billets.

At the core of it, ACC Rescue assets exist to provide the CFACC a capability to meet his PR requirements.  I'm not sure how that is an AFSOC mission.

I personally don't give a shit.  Just support the mission appropriately or tell the pink bodies in the pointy nosed jets what risk is being accepted on their behalf.

[SCRIMP]

With the constant threat of TL;DR:

 

https://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=AD1015743

 

 

I appreciate the dialogue. It is starting to feel like this decision is being made in a HAF vacuum so I mainly wanted to start the discussion to see if those who rely on our service was aware that it may be changing in the near future.

[raimius]

It seems like this is one of those never-ending debates.  There are pros and cons to each side, so CSAR keeps getting flipped between MAJCOMs. 
One the one hand, it seems like AFSOC wants the mission, but on the other hand, there is a suspicion that it really just wants more aircraft to use for whatever it wants. 
ACC seems to want the capability, but doesn't always seem to know how to make it work/care enough to make it work.

[ClearedHot]

18 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

ACC was terrible about helping the CSAR guys out because they don't understand/care about the mission. If you want to know specifics, ask the guys who sat CSAR alert in Afghanistan and those trying to keep CSAR-X from falling apart.

AFSOC cares about AFSOC. Zero fvcks given about ACC assets unless it's to further their own mission. So I fail to see the how the CSAR guys will get the support they deserve to keep us from being pedestrians behind enemy lines for extended periods.

The amazing thing is how well the CSAR guys have done in spite of the AF. 

ACC "IS" terrible about helping the CSAR guys and for some reason (Stockholm Syndrome), the senior CSAR guys remain loyal to their ACC puppet masters.  On MULTIPLE occasions ACC used CSAR TOA to pay for other things, how do you think the CAR folks ended up with the oldest C-130s in the Air Force? 

Another HUGE issue that is always pushed under the rug is the amount of CSAR capability that is in the reserve and guard (50+%).  I am not saying the guard and reserve doesn't pull their weight because in this community they most certainly do, but the active component ends up eating a lot of deployed alert because of activation limitations.  When you have a low density high demand capability, putting 50% in the guard or reserve causes some second and third order effects.

I would disagree with your assessment that AFSOC does not care about "ACC" assets, the minute they become AFSOC assets they will most certainly care as long as the TOA is moved over with them. 

The HC-130J (long overdue), has about 90% commonality with the MC-130J, but the last 10% is all the special sauce that is equally applicable to SOF or CSAR missions, ACC could care less if you get those capabilities which is a terrible shame.  The politics of this potential move are complex and it is not being driven solely by the services or altruism on the part of AFSOC.  The genesis was an effort by OSD to save money, SOF is almost always in the same places (and more), as the conventional folks and they have executed many of the recent CSAR events, why not find some synergy.    The main sticking point form the CSAR rotor types is the deal would almost certainly drive a reduction in the CRH buy, which I personally think is a good thing.  Why in the hell are we buying a 140kt helicopter to conduct long-range CSAR in today's world...seriously?

If I were king for a day I would move CSAR to AFSOC (that comes with some doctrinal changes and direction to SOCOM).  I would put some of the CSAR forces back in the active component (75%-25%).  All 29 HC-130Js (if they get 29, reading the latest NDAA USAF is trying to cut the buy to 26...yeah ACC loves you guys), would be modified to MC-130J configuration (MCTF, SMP, RFCM).  CRH buy would be curtailed to 100ish and 30 CV-22s would be added to AFSOC with at least two CSAR units becoming CV-22 equipped.